Rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) such as Microsoft-backed OpenAI's ChatGPT are complicating governments' efforts to agree to laws governing the use of the technology. The government is consulting Australia's main science advisory body and is considering the next steps, a spokesperson for the industry and science minister said in April. The Financial Conduct Authority, one of several state regulators tasked with drawing up new guidelines covering AI, is consulting with the Alan Turing Institute and other legal and academic institutions to improve its understanding of the technology, a spokesperson said. Britain's competition regulator said on May 4 it would start examining the effect of AI on consumers, businesses and the economy, and whether new controls were needed. Britain said in March it planned to split responsibility for governing AI between its regulators for human rights, health and safety, and competition, rather than creating a new body. China's cyberspace regulator in April unveiled draft measures to manage generative AI services, saying it wanted firms to submit security assessments to authorities before they launch offerings to the public.

Last week, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman appeared before a US Senate committee to talk about the risks and potential of AI language models. Altman, along with many senators, called for international standards for artificial intelligence. He also urged the US to regulate the technology and set up a new agency, much like the Food and Drug Administration, to regulate AI. For an AI policy nerd like myself, the Senate hearing was both encouraging and frustrating. Encouraging because the conversation seems to have moved past promoting wishy-washy self-regulation and on to rules that could actually hold companies accountable.

Survival analysis aims at modeling the relationship between covariates and event occurrence with some untracked (censored) samples. In implementation, existing methods model the survival distribution with strong assumptions or in a discrete time space for likelihood estimation with censorship, which leads to weak generalization. In this paper, we propose Implicit Survival Function (ISF) based on Implicit Neural Representation for survival distribution estimation without strong assumptions,and employ numerical integration to approximate the cumulative distribution function for prediction and optimization. Experimental results show that ISF outperforms the state-of-the-art methods in three public datasets and has robustness to the hyperparameter controlling estimation precision.

Software built on top of machine learning algorithms is becoming increasingly prevalent in a variety of fields, including college admissions, healthcare, insurance, and justice. The effectiveness and efficiency of these systems heavily depend on the quality of the training datasets. Biased datasets can lead to unfair and potentially harmful outcomes, particularly in such critical decision-making systems where the allocation of resources may be affected. This can exacerbate discrimination against certain groups and cause significant social disruption. To mitigate such unfairness, a series of bias-mitigating methods are proposed. Generally, these studies improve the fairness of the trained models to a certain degree but with the expense of sacrificing the model performance. In this paper, we propose FITNESS, a bias mitigation approach via de-correlating the causal effects between sensitive features (e.g., the sex) and the label. Our key idea is that by de-correlating such effects from a causality perspective, the model would avoid making predictions based on sensitive features and thus fairness could be improved. Furthermore, FITNESS leverages multi-objective optimization to achieve a better performance-fairness trade-off. To evaluate the effectiveness, we compare FITNESS with 7 state-of-the-art methods in 8 benchmark tasks by multiple metrics. Results show that FITNESS can outperform the state-of-the-art methods on bias mitigation while preserve the model's performance: it improved the model's fairness under all the scenarios while decreased the model's performance under only 26.67% of the scenarios. Additionally, FITNESS surpasses the Fairea Baseline in 96.72% cases, outperforming all methods we compared.

In July 2022, the Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET) at Georgetown University and the Program on Geopolitics, Technology, and Governance at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center convened a workshop of experts to examine the relationship between vulnerabilities in artificial intelligence systems and more traditional types of software vulnerabilities. Topics discussed included the extent to which AI vulnerabilities can be handled under standard cybersecurity processes, the barriers currently preventing the accurate sharing of information about AI vulnerabilities, legal issues associated with adversarial attacks on AI systems, and potential areas where government support could improve AI vulnerability management and mitigation. Attendees at the workshop included industry representatives in both cybersecurity and AI red-teaming roles; academics with experience conducting adversarial machine learning research; legal specialists in cybersecurity regulation, AI liability, and computer-related criminal law; and government representatives with significant AI oversight responsibilities. This report is meant to accomplish two things. First, it provides a high-level discussion of AI vulnerabilities, including the ways in which they are disanalogous to other types of vulnerabilities, and the current state of affairs regarding information sharing and legal oversight of AI vulnerabilities. Second, it attempts to articulate broad recommendations as endorsed by the majority of participants at the workshop. These recommendations, categorized under four high-level topics, are as follows: 1. Topic: Extending Traditional Cybersecurity for AI Vulnerabilities 1.1. Recommendation: Organizations building or deploying AI models should use a risk management framework that addresses security throughout the AI system life cycle.

Over the past decade explainable artificial intelligence has evolved from a predominantly technical discipline into a field that is deeply intertwined with social sciences. Insights such as human preference for contrastive -- more precisely, counterfactual -- explanations have played a major role in this transition, inspiring and guiding the research in computer science. Other observations, while equally important, have received much less attention. The desire of human explainees to communicate with artificial intelligence explainers through a dialogue-like interaction has been mostly neglected by the community. This poses many challenges for the effectiveness and widespread adoption of such technologies as delivering a single explanation optimised according to some predefined objectives may fail to engender understanding in its recipients and satisfy their unique needs given the diversity of human knowledge and intention. Using insights elaborated by Niklas Luhmann and, more recently, Elena Esposito we apply social systems theory to highlight challenges in explainable artificial intelligence and offer a path forward, striving to reinvigorate the technical research in this direction. This paper aims to demonstrate the potential of systems theoretical approaches to communication in understanding problems and limitations of explainable artificial intelligence.

With the recent appearance of LLMs in practical settings, having methods that can effectively detect factual inconsistencies is crucial to reduce the propagation of misinformation and improve trust in model outputs. When testing on existing factual consistency benchmarks, we find that a few large language models (LLMs) perform competitively on classification benchmarks for factual inconsistency detection compared to traditional non-LLM methods. However, a closer analysis reveals that most LLMs fail on more complex formulations of the task and exposes issues with existing evaluation benchmarks, affecting evaluation precision. To address this, we propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. This new benchmark is 20 times more cost-effective per sample than previous benchmarks and highly reproducible, as we estimate inter-annotator agreement at about 0.9. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8\% below estimated human performance, highlighting the gaps in LLMs' ability to reason about facts and detect inconsistencies when they occur.

Task-oriented dialogue systems aim at providing users with task-specific services. Users of such systems often do not know all the information about the task they are trying to accomplish, requiring them to seek information about the task. To provide accurate and personalized task-oriented information seeking results, task-oriented dialogue systems need to address two potential issues: 1) users' inability to describe their complex information needs in their requests; and 2) ambiguous/missing information the system has about the users. In this paper, we propose a new Multi-Attention Seq2Seq Network, named MAS2S, which can ask questions to clarify the user's information needs and the user's profile in task-oriented information seeking. We also extend an existing dataset for task-oriented information seeking, leading to the \ourdataset which contains about 100k task-oriented information seeking dialogues that are made publicly available\footnote{Dataset and code is available at \href{https://github.com/sweetalyssum/clarit}{https://github.com/sweetalyssum/clarit}.}. Experimental results on \ourdataset show that MAS2S outperforms baselines on both clarification question generation and answer prediction.

The Internet revolution in 1990, followed by the data-driven and information revolution, has transformed the world as we know it. Nowadays, what seam to be 10 to 20 years ago, a science fiction idea (i.e., machines dominating the world) is seen as possible. This revolution also brought a need for new regulatory practices where user trust and artificial Intelligence (AI) discourse has a central role. This work aims to clarify some misconceptions about user trust in AI discourse and fight the tendency to design vulnerable interactions that lead to further breaches of trust, both real and perceived. Findings illustrate the lack of clarity in understanding user trust and its effects on computer science, especially in measuring user trust characteristics. It argues for clarifying those notions to avoid possible trust gaps and misinterpretations in AI adoption and appropriation.

Large Language Models (LLMs), like ChatGPT, have demonstrated vast potential but also introduce challenges related to content constraints and potential misuse. Our study investigates three key research questions: (1) the number of different prompt types that can jailbreak LLMs, (2) the effectiveness of jailbreak prompts in circumventing LLM constraints, and (3) the resilience of ChatGPT against these jailbreak prompts. Initially, we develop a classification model to analyze the distribution of existing prompts, identifying ten distinct patterns and three categories of jailbreak prompts. Subsequently, we assess the jailbreak capability of prompts with ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0, utilizing a dataset of 3,120 jailbreak questions across eight prohibited scenarios. Finally, we evaluate the resistance of ChatGPT against jailbreak prompts, finding that the prompts can consistently evade the restrictions in 40 use-case scenarios. The study underscores the importance of prompt structures in jailbreaking LLMs and discusses the challenges of robust jailbreak prompt generation and prevention.